We Should Abolish Star Ratings

In January 2017 Dave Meltzer famously broke his own star ratings scale, which had been out of 5, by awarding 6 stars to the Kazuchika Okada vs. Kenny Omega match at New Japan Pro Wrestling’s Wrestle Kingdom 12 show.  Meltzer broke the scale even further than that in June of 2018 by awarding 7 stars to the Okada vs. Omega match at Dominion.  The idea of judging matches based on, usually, a 5 star rating system isn’t limited to Meltzer and the Wrestling Observer, it’s become essentially universal in wrestling fandom at this point.  It’s difficult to avoid discussions of matches outside of the star ratings system.  However, I’m here to argue that it’s time to free ourselves from the tyranny of star ratings.

In theory, star ratings are a good way of ranking wrestling matches.  People want to know what the best match of a certain promotion, or a certain wrestler, or a certain year was, and being able to search through Meltzer’s list of five star matches is a quick and easy way to do this.  I’m not against the concept of rating matches, although I think that the obsession with doing so is probably detracting from people’s enjoyment of wrestling as a whole.  But can anyone explain what the difference between a 3.5 star match and a 3.75 star match is?  Or can anyone explain what makes a 1.25 star match and a 1.5 star match?  We can probably all think of what we mean when we say a 5 star match – it’s the “best” wrestling match, however we might define that.  Except that now the scale extends to 7 stars.  So what does that mean for all the matches that have been rated 5 stars in the past?  Should they be retroactively reassessed to see if they meet the 7 star criteria?  Star ratings at one point may have given wrestling some credibility as an art form, since they echo criticism of more “legitimate” art forms like Roger Ebert’s film reviews, but just as there are more interesting ways of critiquing films than a 5 star scale, the same is true for wrestling.

The universality of star ratings systems is in itself another flaw with them, since there is an belief inherent in the system that any two star rated matches can be compared.  However, I would suggest that most people who use star ratings don’t clearly define what their own metrics are.  For some reviewers pure workrate in the ring is the most important thing, but for others it’s the theatricality of wrestling.  To assume that we can compare any two star ratings systems ignores the differences that are usually implicit in the ratings themselves.  For star ratings to really be meaningful there needs to be more definition, both of the criteria used by reviewers and for each of the divisions within the system.

Beyond the question of definition, star ratings tend to fail to capture some of the most important elements that make up a wrestling match.  If you are looking purely at the action in the ring then we may be able to create a collective definition of what a 5 star match should be.  However, judging a match just on the in-ring action misses everything surrounding that match, including capturing the emotional impact of a match based on the pre-match build-up and our investment in the people involved.  Some of the best matches are those that might not be particularly heavy on workrate, but have an emotional core that we relate to as fans.  Wrestling at its core involves theatricality and the emotional investment of fans, as well as the athleticism of in-ring competition. A great match is more than just the action that takes place bell to bell, it is captured in the build-up, the character arcs of two (or more) wrestlers, and the grand narratives that the best wrestling stories tap into.

As an example, take the main event of the Tokyo Joshi Pro Wrestling show on January 4^th this year between Miyu Yamashita and Maki Itoh. Just to judge this match solely on what happened on a January afternoon in Tokyo doesn’t do this match justice. For anyone who has followed the careers of Maki Itoh and Miyu Yamashita closely it had a lot more of an emotional pay-off than just watching the 17 minutes of match might have. Watching Maki Itoh go from a fired idol who was a definitive outsider in wrestling terms to someone who was now headlining Korakuen Hall opposite the undisputed ace of the company gave this match a much deeper sense of pathos. How should this be represented in a star rating?  This is a problem that becomes even more apparent when watching matches from the past.  What exactly does it mean that Meltzer rated The Sheepherders vs. The Fantastics 5 stars in 1986, without knowing something about the events surrounding that match?  Rather than focusing on star ratings, I suggest that we should think about matches more holistically, and review them in a way that better reflects that.

At this point in time, wrestling is overrun by star ratings.  As a fanbase, we should make an effort to move away from basing our enjoyment of wrestling on star ratings.  Use any number of other criteria to judge wrestling or, even better, don’t get too obsessed with ranking wrestling at all.  There are more interesting ways to judge wrestling than just a 5, 6, or 7 star scale, and I would encourage everyone to think about how to do that.  It’s time to end the Meltzerian grip on wrestling criticism, and the star ratings system that he brought with him.

This editorial was inspired by a number of conversations with other Twitter users who have strong feelings about star ratings, shout out to that group.